« Exactly how many months qualifies as a "substantial" prison sentence? | Main | Former CBS producer pleads guilty to trying to extort David Letterman »
March 9, 2010
"Restitution for Child Pornography Victims"
The title of this post is the headline given to this local public radio show on an interesting cutting-edge topic which I have covered at some on this blog. Here is the set up:
Traditionally, courts have punished those convicted of possessing child pornography with heavy jail time. But in a growing trend, victims are demanding that offenders pay restitution too. The approach is generating debate about how far courts can go in punishing people who are caught with pornography, but aren't the direct perpetrators of the crime.Guests:
Ernie Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children
Steve Kelly, Attorney with the Maryland law firm Miles & Stockbridge and Commissioner on the Maryland Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University; practicing defense attorney
Some related recent federal child porn prosecution and sentencing posts:
- More examples of sentencing uncertainty surrounding federal child porn cases
- "Prosecutors seek nearly $200k for child porn victim"
March 9, 2010 at 06:01 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201310f83035d970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Restitution for Child Pornography Victims":
Comments
No argument here. If OJ can lose in civil court even though he was found not guilty for murder, then I daresay restitution for kiddie-porn victims should be possible... particularly from, but not limited to, the person reponsible for the photos/video to begin with.
Posted by: Tbuckets | Mar 9, 2010 11:37:47 PM
Should cy pres apply to the depiction of child porn in CGI? Of course, it should, since this is just another gotcha land pirate attack on the assets of the productive male.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 10, 2010 1:44:27 AM
like i've said before. works for me too as long as the fed's are also required to pay it. since they use 100's if not THOUSANDS of those same photo's as bait!
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 10, 2010 2:30:03 AM
To me, this is similar to restitution in receiving stolen property cases. It is the thief that is responsible for the loss to the victim, not the person who ultimately ends up with the property. I have successfully argued this several times to the irritation of DA's. Similarly, if there is restitution to be paid, it is the person who caused the harm that resulted in the actual damage to the victim who is financially liable for that loss; not the person who randomly views that image one year or 10 years later, but who has had no contact with the victim whatsoever. The victim would not even know of their continued victimization if the AUSA's didn't tell them about it.
Posted by: Talitha | Mar 10, 2010 12:22:03 PM
And what about 18 USC 2255 actions? Rent seeking plaintiffs attorneys are now trying to get $150k+ under similar theories and the damages are deemed by congress as being no less than 150k once proved. Seems like we are getting way to far afield from the actual abusers. And, as the commentators have noted, the feds are the ones who are making the victims aware of the downloading. I would think that notice is actually more harmful than the knowledge (that they already have) that the pictures are circulating in cyberspace.
Posted by: Monty | Mar 10, 2010 3:54:45 PM
Of course, the problem with the theory of the victims and harm is that the theory supporting criminalization is revictimization and the creation of a market demand for continued child sexual abuse (the latter seems more pesuasive to me, mind you, given the number of people with access to these "revictimization" images, including the public if the photos are revealed during trial). So if these children are indeed victimized once again if the images are viewed, and that revictimization, no matter how attenuated we might feel it is, supports the imposition of these draconian sentences with the (even more) draconian collateral consequences of registry and residency restrictions, and possibly a lifetime of supervised release, I say that it justifies giving the victims restitution.
Posted by: Alec | Mar 13, 2010 8:41:01 AM
"Of course, the problem with the theory of the victims and harm is that the theory supporting criminalization is revictimization and the creation of a market demand for continued child sexual abuse (the latter seems more pesuasive to me, mind you, given the number of people with access to these "revictimization" images, including the public if the photos are revealed during trial). So if these children are indeed victimized once again if the images are viewed, and that revictimization, no matter how attenuated we might feel it is, supports the imposition of these draconian sentences with the (even more) draconian collateral consequences of registry and residency restrictions, and possibly a lifetime of supervised release, I say that it justifies giving the victims restitution."
HORSE PUCKY! unless you mean it should be paid by the govt! since they are the ones dragging them through the mud over and over and over and over with their idiotic notifications...
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 15, 2010 12:32:18 AM
While I don't agree that revictimization is really a viable theory for many reasons outside the scope of the discussion here, what matters is that despite my disagreement, the courts have embraced revictimization as a legitimate basis for criminalization of the images. The same rationale supports the sentencing enhancements. Given that the courts have embraced the theory, this is not a "victimless" crime and restitution is appropriate.
Actually I'm not opposed to the government paying partial costs here (out of a restitution fund that includes defendant funds). Because the government refuses to stipulate to the content of the images for purpose of trial, and because the collection and handling of the evidence by law enforcement necessarily involves possessing and viewing the images, they're partially responsible for revictimization as well. Of course this is purely academic; they're not legally required to pay at all, to my knowledge.
Posted by: Alec | Mar 18, 2010 6:32:11 PM
Nice post. This post is different from what I read on most blog. And it have so many valuable things to learn.
Thank you for your sharing!
Posted by: Belarus Kali | Oct 21, 2010 8:42:25 AM
